Brexit (Old)

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Irish border was identified as an issue before the referendum. Just because Vote Leave ignored it as an issue doesn't mean it's come from nowhere.

If you're out of the customs union you need customs checks and that requires some form of infrastructure because the magical border camera technology doesn't exist yet.

Everyone says this is easy but what's the answer to it?

I take it you've never heard what Tusk said then.

“The issue of Northern Ireland is being given serious and special consideration by the 27. We know the sensitivities that exist on the Irish issue and we are looking at an innovative, creative, and pragmatic solution to see that the peace and stability on the Irish isle are maintained."

Source https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/78...er-donald-tusk

Innovative, creative, and pragmatic solution is by definition something that has never been done before so anyone asking for an example of anywhere where it has happened won't get an answer.

[Sephiroth]

I've just returned from NI and people to whom I've spoken all agree that the border must remain open. The reason is that the IRA and Sinn Fein, who espouse unification, feel that an open border is the closest they'll get to that in the political reality. The Protestants fear that border controls would thus re-ignite violence based on the IRA cause.

You can see what an intractable problem this has now become. As others have mentioned, neither the UK nor the EU want to erect a hard border, and nor will they most likely because neither wants to shoulder blame for new violence. This MIGHT force the two sides to reach agreement but that needs to carry the British public who really have not been properly brought into the debate.

If we crash out, then under WTO rules WE would either have to erect a hard border (so I understand) or we would have to negotiate a technical solution with the WTO (that hasn't been tried anywhere - is that true?).

The UK really is in a bad place that those horrible Brussels lot can readily exploit unless the likes of Tusk bring them down to earth with the reality of the looming disaster.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising the decision to leave the EU; that is perfectly reasonable. It is the inability of politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats to be reasonable that is at fault here, notably Varadkar who is playing this for all he thinks he's worth.

For the record, I'd rather stay in the EU (and not do "ever closer union") than leave on White Paper terms. I'm also content to leave the EU because sovereignty is the big issue for me.

An awful mess full of unintended consequences.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Innovative, creative, and pragmatic solution is by definition something that has never been done before so anyone asking for an example of anywhere where it has happened won't get an answer.

That solution can be political too and until someone comes up with a technological one then that's likely the direction we need to go.

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If we crash out, then under WTO rules WE would either have to erect a hard border (so I understand) or we would have to negotiate a technical solution with the WTO (that hasn't been tried anywhere - is that true?).

Technically we don't have to have a customs border coming into the country since it's our country we can do what we want. We can wave though EU goods no problemo if we wanted too but obviously this has ramifications and is not a long-term solution. Whilst we're mirroring EU regulation it's not so bad but as soon as we want to change anything then without such a check then goods can come in which don't comply with those regulations and it probably has tax/VAT implications too.

Originally Posted by pip08456

I take it you've never heard what Tusk said then.


Source https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/78...er-donald-tusk

Innovative, creative, and pragmatic solution is by definition something that has never been done before so anyone asking for an example of anywhere where it has happened won't get an answer.

And to be delivered in 8 months...

Having worked in IT/Technology for nearly 40 years, I can't think of a major programme of work (like this will be) that has been delivered in that sort of timescale, and that's before you take into consideration that it will be a Government project, with all the joy that brings (and they haven't even started the tender process, which is a challenge if you don't have a delivery specification).

I want this to work, but previous experiences lead me to believe my hope may be ill-founded.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And to be delivered in 8 months...

Having worked in IT/Technology for nearly 40 years, I can't think of a major programme of work (like this will be) that has been delivered in that sort of timescale, and that's before you take into consideration that it will be a Government project, with all the joy that brings (and they haven't even started the tender process, which is a challenge if you don't have a delivery specification).

I want this to work, but previous experiences lead me to believe my hope may be ill-founded.

Of course you are absolutely right more or less (I have a few years on you!).

I can think of imaginative ways of maximising the opportunity that a transition period provides, during which we run the tender (OJEU rules but could be single tender if there was an obvious candidate which there isn't). Then we could apply zero tariffs for the period until the new system is deployable. The EU would need to reciprocate for our exports, agreeing to take any temporary hit for goods from outside the EU that find their way into the EU; we might be able to financially compensate the EU.

Trouble is that the necessary thinking is beyond most of our politicians on current evidence.,

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well it is a negotiation. However it's not as if we've been at this for months and keep saying No. They've had it for just under two weeks. It's a bit early to be throwing our toys out of the pram about how difficult they're being.



The Irish border was identified as an issue before the referendum. Just because Vote Leave ignored it as an issue doesn't mean it's come from nowhere.

If you're out of the customs union you need customs checks and that requires some form of infrastructure because the magical border camera technology doesn't exist yet.

Everyone says this is easy but what's the answer to it?

You are falling for the hype of the remainers, who are growing ever more desperate.

First of all, you seem to be saying there has been no negotiation and the EU keep saying 'no'. If that was really the case, how come that both sides agree that we are 80% there? The illusion you are painting is not an awfully good one.

As for the Northern Ireland border, I have said a few times before that this is not the issue some people think it is. Existing arrangements are adequate for most of the trade that goes through the border, and Theresa May and Dominic Raab will be discussing the precise method by which this is done for the remainder. There are detailed options not yet made public which will be subject to negotiation.

You can see from the new bounce in her step that at long last, Theresa May can see that the final details of this plan will soon be agreed.

[1andrew1]

Some good news if we're to avoid a no-deal Brexit.

Brexit could go to extra time: Article 50 process may be extended to avoid cliff-edge exit, says Irish deputy PM
Britain could be offered extra time to strike a Brexit trade deal to avoid the economic havoc of crashing out of the EU, it emerged today.
With emergency plans being made to secure food supplies and stockpile medicines, Theresa May faces a race against time to clinch an agreement by March next year.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3895901.html

Let's not pretend that a no-deal Brexit makes any kind of sense.

Trade with the EU would switch to World Trade Organization terms, raising customs checks and tariffs overnight. Capital could flee the City of London, followed by a run on the pound. Food supplies would be at risk because of the uncertainty over certification and standards. The UK’s ports and airports would be thrown into disarray. The list is endless, and no amount of wishful thinking can overcome this reality.
Nevertheless, the May government is putting on a stern face, insisting that the British spirit will triumph against all odds.
Dominic Raab, eager to make his mark as the new Brexit secretary, says the UK is ready to walk away from negotiations and take off the table its £39bn Brexit divorce payment. He is also ramping up preparations for a no-deal Brexit and will publish more details this week.
All this ignores what we have learnt from the negotiations to date. The EU holds the highest cards. On every issue of substance, the UK has folded.

https://www.ft.com/content/0ebec84c-...f-a6a2f7bca546

[Sephiroth]

A no-deal Brexit makes more sense if the EU doesn't behave like the enemy on 30-March.

Which friendly country would stop selling us medicines and food, particularly if we charge no duties?

Whether or not the EU holds the high cards, if they behave badly in this regard we are right to walk away.

On the other hand, I don't believe that the EU would go that far or come anything close - Varadkar notwithstanding.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Some good news if we're to avoid a no-deal Brexit.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3895901.html
]

We may get extra time, but we're rubbish at penalties

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

A no-deal Brexit makes more sense if the EU doesn't behave like the enemy on 30-March.

Which friendly country would stop selling us medicines and food, particularly if we charge no duties?

Whether or not the EU holds the high cards, if they behave badly in this regard we are right to walk away.

On the other hand, I don't believe that the EU would go that far or come anything close - Varadkar notwithstanding.

The EU aren't saying they're going to stop selling us food or medicine.

The Government is worried about chaos at the ports physically bringing goods into the country. If he have hastily arranged customs checks then delays would be the problem. I think can just wave things though. As far as I can work out the Government don't actually know what the hell they're going to do so are saying they're stockpiling stuff to be 'reassuring'.

You can generally buy whatever you want from other countries if it's legal there, the issue is if it's legal here.

[Dave42]

EU and USA trade deal in negotiations

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

The EU aren't saying they're going to stop selling us food or medicine.

The Government is worried about chaos at the ports physically bringing goods into the country. If he have hastily arranged customs checks then delays would be the problem. I think can just wave things though. As far as I can work out the Government don't actually know what the hell they're going to do so are saying they're stockpiling stuff to be 'reassuring'.

You can generally buy whatever you want from other countries if it's legal there, the issue is if it's legal here.

Agreed. There does seem to be quite little understanding of what no deal actually means. Carol Mortishead in today's Standard has a good attempt at clarifying some aspects of it.

Let’s be absolutely clear: walking out (“no deal”) is an English fantasy. It means chaos at UK airports and the Channel ports (the Government is already preparing to commandeer the M26 as a lorry park), chaos that will mean big financial losses for British exporters and importers.

Raab might say the EU will lose too. Indeed, they will lose but the 27 remaining states will carry on trading with each other and the world while the UK is gridlocked in a very expensive mire. And while Britain struggles with paperwork and lorry parks, will European businesses sit on their hands or will they rush to steal Britain’s customers in Europe and around the world?

The UK’s “no deal” trading arrangements will be tough and, initially, very uncertain. Under the WTO rules, Britain must apply the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle. It means you cannot offer one state a special tariff without offering it to all WTO members.

Average EU external tariffs are quite low (1.5%) but on certain important sectors are very high, in particular cars, about 10%. The Government would hope to agree a special deal on cars but the EU will never agree because it would have to offer that special tariff to every other WTO member state to satisfy the MFN rule. A tariff of 10% on cars would be ruinous in an industry where profit margins on new cars vary between 4% and 8%.

Walking out of the EU would be disastrous for industry and for agriculture, too, a sector at present protected by billions of euros of EU subsidy.

For example, sheep farmers benefit from the EU’s high external tariff of 12% plus €1700 (£1500) per tonne on lamb. Without a deal, UK farmers will face that tariff on exports of lamb to Europe. If we scrap tariffs in order to do overseas trade deals, cheap New Zealand lamb will flood the domestic market and Britain’s hill farmers will face ruin.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/...-a3896096.html

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. There does seem to be quite little understanding of what no deal actually means. Carol Mortishead in today's Standard has a good attempt at clarifying some aspects of it.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/...-a3896096.html

According to Carol there is no such thing as MFN, how can there be? If Most Favoured Nation has to be offered to all WTO members then what's the point in having it?

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Express:


The 2017 NatCen British Social Attitudes Survey, whose results have just been released, questioned 3,988 at the end of last year on what they believe it is like to live in Britain and how they think the country is run.

More than a third (36 percent) of interviewees at the time the poll was conducted wanted to leave the EU - which is up from 22 percent in the research from 2015.

The rise in support for leaving the EU has not been accompanied by increased concern about the implications of EU membership or greater optimism about the consequences of exiting the bloc, the research found.

So contrary to the remainers at CF claiming leavers are regretting their vote support for Brexit is hardening.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

So contrary to the remainers at CF claiming leavers are regretting their vote support for Brexit is hardening.

Wouldn't take much notice of selective polls from the Express. Most reliable polls are showing a shift against Brexit

This Saturday marks two years since the EU referendum. The first of several pieces of legislation necessary to enable the UK to leave the European Union has now passed the Commons, the Brexit negotiations in Europe are making slow progress, but where does public opinion stand?

The overall picture is a negative one. Slightly more of the British public think that voting to leave the EU was wrong for Britain than think it was the right decision, and on most measures more people expect it will have a negative than a positive impact.

On top of this, a large majority think that the government is doing badly at negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. People aren’t clear what either of the main parties really thinks about Brexit and don’t much support either Theresa May’s or Jeremy Corbyn’s stances towards Europe.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/06/23...dum-two-years/